Rand Paul Gives His Musings On Gay Marriage

Capitalizing on his inexcusable attempt to piggy-back his way to fame atop the blog, Senator Aqua Buddha sat down amid the crayon shrapnel and the petrified Play Doh in the offices of the National Reviewfor the purposes of being stupid again on an issue of simple human rights.

You may recall the newest darling of brogressives — Thanks, Addie Stan — on the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Or on the Americans With Disabilities Act. Or on the value of collective bargaining. The blog's Five Minute Rule as regards the Paul family and its politics remains intact because it enables the casual listener to realize that Rand Paul — and his pappy, Crazy Uncle Liberty (!) — believe you have all the freedom in the world, but that every other powerful institution in society — except the government — has the untrammelled freedom to abridge the de facto exercise of those freedoms as thoroughly as it chooses, and that the government has no place in alleviating the suffering that results because that would be destructive of your freedom. Oh, and you shouldn't get blown up at Starbucks by your own government, either.

Advertisement - Continue Reading Below

Now, it's gay marriage and, yeah, he's nuts.

"I'm not going to change who I am or what I believe in. I am an old-fashioned traditionalist. I believe in the historical definition of marriage. That being said, I think contracts between adults-I'm not for limiting contracts between adults. In fact, if there are ways to make the tax code more neutral where it doesn't mention the word marriage, then we don't have to redefine what marriage is. We just don't have marriage in the tax code. If health benefits are a problem, why don't we not define them by marriage? Why don't we say, you have another adult who lives in the house, and a kid who lives in the house can be part of family coverage? Then you don't have to redefine, and have people like myself, and people who live in the southeastern part of the country, we don't have to change our definition of what we think marriage is, but we allow contracts to occur so there is more ability to [make] the law neutral."

Jennifer Rubin — who is, alas, off her meds by a few degrees of longitude again — once again fails to miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity, preferring instead to fall on the cat.

Conservatives understand that there is a realm of conduct left to churches, synagogues, families, localities and individuals. The essence of Burkean conservatism is a healthy regard for and respect for those realms and for the customs, habits and beliefs that flow from those free associations. Whatever the methodology, conservatives at the national level need to extract themselves from a losing battle that should not be within the purview of the federal government.

So Rand Paul thinks we should tear up the tax code so he doesn't have to think about gay people getting married, and Rubin thinks there actually is a law proposed — or, more likely, already in place — that would force religious institutions to conduct gay weddings. And all of this on an issue that is as far on its way to being 100 percent in the opposite direction as any in the national dialogue. Oops, 5:00:01. Outta here.